But he shows that it only is 1.35 initially, boot up ram voltage is always higher for training or whatever.
DRAM Boot Voltage or
DRAM Training Voltage
It's a thing that's the same thing on any vendor of ram, cpu, mobo.
But he shows that it only is 1.35 initially, boot up ram voltage is always higher for training or whatever.What a disaster of mythical proportions! Gigabyte BIOS, the latest version, is still a minefield:
- to manually set VSOC the user needs to enter the same value in two different menu locations
- when altering DRAM voltage to high values, VSOC erroneously goes to 1.35V and even 1.4V !?!?
Relevant quote from Buildzoid:
It's the same behavior as the one I highlighted yesterday on the Z690 board from MSI. User input can potentially trigger automated changes by the BIOS that the user is not aware of. It's frustrating, and in this case, dangerous.
Watch more of the video, that's just one behavior. Later he manages to make the "automatic" system lock VSOC to either 1.35V or even 1.4VBut he shows that it only is 1.35 initially, boot up ram voltage is always higher for training or whatever.
It seems like the BIOS behaves differently depending on if you have EXPO enabled or not. If it frustrates and confuses Buildzoid imagine what the typical user would feel like.Watch more of the video, that's just one behavior. Later he manages to make the "automatic" system lock VSOC to either 1.35V or even 1.4V
I was just arguing that the LGA1700 socket and the CPU itself can handle 400W without grenading itself (so could AM5, although not indefinitely obviously).
Are we really having this discussion?
Push 300A through VCCSA and you'll have a BBQ'd chip. That would be similar to what is happening here with the AM5 chips. Sure you can push a crap ton of amperage through parts of the CPU designed for it as long as you have the cooling - but not through the more sensitive bits.
They don't use that much power because they will automatically throttle down to only the maximum of what they can handle, they won't go up to something that will fry them and the board they are on.
What happens when you have Ryzen Master doing the work for you?What a disaster of mythical proportions! Gigabyte BIOS, the latest version, is still a minefield:
- to manually set VSOC the user needs to enter the same value in two different menu locations
- when altering DRAM voltage to high values, VSOC erroneously goes to 1.35V and even 1.4V !?!?
What happens when you have Ryzen Master doing the work for you?
And I thought I was dipping into the red wine too early this evening. not so dark, a bit of spark and smoke, much glam for that processor.Yes, run! Yes, Ryzen's strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. vSOC, OCP, EXPO aggression; the dark side of the Force are they.
Words from great yoda.. -_-
Yes even then because these protections are inside the CPU and as long as the protections don't blow up they work.Not if the board's OCP is completely hosed/non-functional.
Yes even then because these protections are inside the CPU and as long as the protections don't blow up they work.
How many times do I have to link this video?
He makes the mobo push 2V to the CPU and the CPU doesn't blow up because it protects itself.
But that is how broken OCP on a mobo would kill your CPU.This point is irrelevant. The system is idle and the sampling time is a few seconds. Yes it did the right thing but the situation is totally different. There is no heat, resistance or time. These failures happen because of a myriad of factors none of which this sample of one addresses.
same for Strix x670e gaming wifi - 1410 has the new AGESA 1.0.0.7 but its beta. Haven't used the system since this burning up started being reported. Wanted to wait till it was all sorted.@Schmide
Agreed, probably best to leave him to his rantings at this point.
In other news, anyone know what, if anything, Asus has done to improve the situation on the x670e hero post bios 1303? I'm seeing 1401 and 1410 available as betas, but I'm really looking for a stable release newer than 1303.
But that is how broken OCP on a mobo would kill your CPU.
It would happen at system boot up with the CPU not doing much and being cool, and either the CPU would shut down to protect itself or it would not shut down and cook itself.
If X is the case, then Y is also the case. Y is true, so X must be true as well
No but if you do it on 1000 CPUs and ten of them burn up because all of these 10 fail to do any thermal protection then you still have a problem with your thermal protection.perform the stupid bios example of overvolting and it survives, everything is hunky dory. Shenanigans
No but if you do it on 1000 CPUs and ten of them burn up because all of these 10 fail to do any thermal protection then you still have a problem with your thermal protection.
At least Asus is being consistent with their UEFI revision numbers. From what the Reddit megathread has said, it looks like AGESA 1.0.0.7-based BIOS/UEFI revisions will become available from major vendors on May 6th in non-beta release versioning.same for Strix x670e gaming wifi - 1410 has the new AGESA 1.0.0.7 but its beta. Haven't used the system since this burning up started being reported. Wanted to wait till it was all sorted.
It was JayzTwoCents and no, it never worked fine with the original Asus motherboard. He had to change it out. He said in his latest video that he is still experiencing some quirks and wonders if he made the wrong choice in platforms. He also said he would do an update video about it soon.Does anyone remember that video from the gray haired guy on youtube, the one who acts like a clown in some videos? he had an issue with his x3d and an asus board. now that we know what's going on it makes sense that this may have played a role in his problems because he had been using the computer just fine??? msi is a fine choice this generation......
cheers. I couldn't remember who it was or what the video said since it's been two months. I saw the freeze frame of that video earlier but it was a jpeg with text on top of it like a meme. will check it out this weekend, ty.It was JayzTwoCents and no, it never worked fine with the original Asus motherboard. He had to change it out. He said in his latest video that he is still experiencing some quirks and wonders if he made the wrong choice in platforms. He also said he would do an update video about it soon.
A CPU failure rate of even 2-5% is not unheard of even on a platform that never had any headlines of any failures at all.If there was a 1% failure rate you would know. Stop exaggerating and exacerbating on what you probably ... never mind.
A CPU failure rate of even 2-5% is not unheard of even on a platform that never had any headlines of any failures at all.
Intel's 11th Gen CPUs Had the Highest Failure Rates of All CPUs b/w 2019-21 | Hardware Times
Intel’s 11th Gen Core processors had the highest failure rate among all consumer CPUs between the years 2019 and 2021. This data was compiled by Puget Systems using the data collected over the last 3 years. The system builder used the following processor families to calculate the below...www.hardwaretimes.com
No reason to be fair at all, if a platform that had no mayor reports of failing CPUs can have a 5% failure rate then just extrapolate what kind of a failure rate there is if there are mayor reports of failing, with youtubers making videos mobo makers releasing bios versions every day and AMD scrambling to claim max safe values.to be fair though, when a 11th gen intel chip dies it does not take the board with it in any reproducible manner.
While true, that extrapolation assumes that all things get "similar" treatment. Alas, we are not entirely unbiased.No reason to be fair at all, if a platform that had no mayor reports of failing CPUs can have a 5% failure rate then just extrapolate what kind of a failure rate there is if there are mayor reports of failing, with youtubers making videos mobo makers releasing bios versions every day and AMD scrambling to claim max safe values.